This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

REMINDER

Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

I am somewhat confused about the Q, especially the Q7, which has a larger image sensor and should give better image quality. But the test review of it on Dpreview only gives the camera 70% and is rather critical of the video performance.

I know there are some of you who own these little gems, so what is the truth? Is it that the still images are spot on, but the video is letting down the side, or is it the price that puts it into a range of other cameras, which are better for similar money?

The one intriguing plus for me of course, is that with an adapter I can use my 10-20 and 50mm lenses on it. I know the lack of size is attractive, but if the performance is 'iffy', is that so important.

Also, does anyone know if the adapter retains any auto functionality, or is everything manual only?

I am somewhat confused about the Q, especially the Q7, which has a larger image sensor and should give better image quality. But the test review of it on Dpreview only gives the camera 70% and is rather critical of the video performance.

I know there are some of you who own these little gems, so what is the truth? Is it that the still images are spot on, but the video is letting down the side, or is it the price that puts it into a range of other cameras, which are better for similar money?

The one intriguing plus for me of course, is that with an adapter I can use my 10-20 and 50mm lenses on it. I know the lack of size is attractive, but if the performance is 'iffy', is that so important.

Also, does anyone know if the adapter retains any auto functionality, or is everything manual only?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I can't help thinking the reviewer just doesn't like Pentax.

>What We Don't Like

Compact-camera sized tendencies like purple fringing

Poor video quality with electronic IS, delay in audio on replay

JPEG detail suffers considerably at ISO 800 and up

Limited selection of Q-mount lenses

No electronic viewfinder accessory

Smaller sensor compared to other interchangeable lens systems

Toy lenses have limited use and appeal<

It's designed to go in your pocket, take interchangeable lenses and good quality RAW, which he does admit, but he seems to be basing his review on "ooh, it hasn't got things that bigger cameras have, so it can't be any good", rather than looking at what is in his hands and asking if it takes decent quality pictures. My Q is fine as far as I'm concerned [perhaps I'm easily pleased], it fits in my pocket, goes out probably more often than the SLR, is easy to use, completely manual if you want it to be, and fairly good in low light if you use the 8.5 f1.9 01 lens.
Mind you, they're right about the toy lenses.

For my sins, I have a (whisper mode on) Canon G10 (whisper mode off) and TBH it is pretty appalling image quality wise because of the restricted dynamic range. Skies, even overcast ones, are mostly blown out. But it is small enough to be carried pretty much anywhere, so it does get used and I put up with the limitations. What I need to ask is would the Q7 be better than the G10. If it is only marginal, there is not a lot of point changing. Perhaps I will never know, but thanks for the reply.

For my sins, I have a (whisper mode on) Canon G10 (whisper mode off) and TBH it is pretty appalling image quality wise because of the restricted dynamic range. Skies, even overcast ones, are mostly blown out. But it is small enough to be carried pretty much anywhere, so it does get used and I put up with the limitations. What I need to ask is would the Q7 be better than the G10. If it is only marginal, there is not a lot of point changing. Perhaps I will never know, but thanks for the reply.

Click to expand...

Just had a quick look at some Q shots. I would say it copes very well with awkward lighting, most highlights [clouds in this case] are not blown, even when quite bright.

I am somewhat confused about the Q, especially the Q7, which has a larger image sensor and should give better image quality. But the test review of it on Dpreview only gives the camera 70% and is rather critical of the video performance.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the score on DPR, they compared it directly against other mirrorless cameras (e.g. Sony NEX, mfts and Samsung etc), so the score was never going to be high. I can see why they did it, as there isn't anything else in the market to compare it to - even enthusiast compacts aren't a fair comparison, but it somewhat misses the point of the camera IMO.

Ask any owner of a Q and they will always say they bought it for the fun factor, rather than the quality of the pictures it takes. I don't own one, but with the original Q going for £150 brand new, I am sorely tempted, even though I already have an XF1 that probably out performs it.

I think I am too much wedded to 100% viewfinders and high quality images to be able to get along with anything other than a dslr really. I'm going to have to accept that I will be carrying a brick around with me for some time to come.

I think I am too much wedded to 100% viewfinders and high quality images to be able to get along with anything other than a dslr really. I'm going to have to accept that I will be carrying a brick around with me for some time to come.

Click to expand...

If you are short-sighted, I wouldn't worry about the viewfinder. I used to be extremely anti non-viewfinder cameras. Then tried the Q and found I was holding it damn near as close as the SLR, and probably it was just as stable.

With all respect to your opinion, I do not think that an electronic viewfinder or the rear screen of a compact or system camera comes close to looking at the real world through a 100% viewfinder. This is the one thing above all that has put me off cameras such as the Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic offerings, good as they may be in terms of image quality.

Perhaps I'm just a bit old fashioned, but that is how I prefer to see the world when making images. This is also a real limitation to the Canon G10. It has a viewfinder of sorts, but it only shows some of the scene and it is tiny. The rear screen is almost useless in strong sunshine, on the rare occasion we get some.

With all respect to your opinion, I do not think that an electronic viewfinder or the rear screen of a compact or system camera comes close to looking at the real world through a 100% viewfinder. This is the one thing above all that has put me off cameras such as the Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic offerings, good as they may be in terms of image quality.

Perhaps I'm just a bit old fashioned, but that is how I prefer to see the world when making images. This is also a real limitation to the Canon G10. It has a viewfinder of sorts, but it only shows some of the scene and it is tiny. The rear screen is almost useless in strong sunshine, on the rare occasion we get some.

Each to his own, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I use the screen, but I don't like it. It's just not as bad to hold as I expected.

>The rear screen is almost useless in strong sunshine,< I have to disagree here, though, they're totally useless in strong sunshine.

I have to disagree here, though, they're totally useless in strong sunshine.

Click to expand...

Have you tried using any of the cameras offered by Samsung? I still own a Samsung EX1 enthuiast compact with a flip out screen, the AMOLED screen on that is brilliant, even on a sunny day. If only the rest of the camera's performance matched the quality of the screen, i'd still use it now.